FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE:

FEDERAL ELECTION COMMISSION ISSUES FINE OF $37,000 AGAINST
JOHN ASHCROFT’S POLITICAL COMMITTEES FOR VIOLATIONS OF
FEDERAL CAMPAIGN FINANCE LAW

COALITION OF CAMPAIGN REFORM GROUPS AND VOTERS WHICH SUED THE FEC
CALLS THE PENALTY “A FARCE”

PLAINTIFFS SAY THEY WILL FILE A NEW FEDERAL LAWSUIT AGAINST THE FEC AND
MAY SEEK CRIMINAL INVESTIGATION BY THE US JUSTICE DEPARTMENT

WASHINGTON, DC – The Federal Election Commission has issued a fine of $37,000 against United States Attorney General John Ashcroft’s 2000 campaign committee for the US Senate and his political action committee, the Spirit of America PAC, for violations of federal campaign finance law during the 2000 election. The FEC’s action, which occurred on December 11, 2003, and became public today, comes in the midst of a federal lawsuit brought by a coalition of campaign reform groups and Missouri voters that accused the FEC of excessive delay in investigating the violations. The FEC’s “conciliation agreement” with the Ashcroft committees, released today, reveals that John Ashcroft was directly involved in the circumstances leading to the violations.

The plaintiffs in the case, who had originally filed an administrative complaint against the agency alleging the violations by Ashcroft’s political committees, announced today that they will file a new federal lawsuit against the FEC for not adequately enforcing the law. They also said they are considering filing a complaint with the United States Justice Department for a criminal investigation of the matter.

“The Federal Election Commission’s action in this case is a farce,” says Bonnie Tenneriello, an attorney with the National Voting Rights Institute and co-lead counsel for the plaintiffs. “John Ashcroft’s political committees, and possibly John Ashcroft himself, engaged in serious violations of federal campaign finance law during the 2000 election. The FEC’s fine is merely a slap on the wrist.”

“No one is above the law,” says Tenneriello, “not even the chief law enforcement officer of the United States. We will pursue this matter further to ensure that the law is properly enforced against those who committed these violations.”

The allegations in the underlying case center on the disclosure, first reported on February 1, 2001, by The Washington Post, that the Spirit of America PAC had contributed a fundraising list of 100,000 donors to Ashcroft’s 2000 Senate campaign in Missouri. Federal campaign finance law prohibits political action committees from making campaign contributions to federal candidates that exceed the value of $10,000 in an election cycle (primary and general election included). The Washington Post article stated that the PAC developed the list between 1997 and 1999, “at a cost of more than $2 million.” The article appeared on the day of the U.S. Senate’s confirmation vote on Ashcroft to be United States Attorney General.

The federal lawsuit alleges that the donated fundraising list was an in-kind contribution to Ashcroft’s Senate campaign that far exceeded the federal campaign contribution limit. The lawsuit also alleges that the Spirit of America PAC and the campaign violated federal campaign disclosure laws by failing to report the contribution to the FEC.

The plaintiffs in the case, the Alliance for Democracy and two Missouri voters, filed an administrative complaint before the FEC on March 8, 2001, along with national campaign reform groups, Common Cause and the National Voting Rights Institute. The administrative complaint asked the FEC to enforce federal campaign finance laws and take action against Ashcroft’s campaign committee and his PAC. In March 2002, with the FEC having yet to act on the complaint, the plaintiffs filed their lawsuit against the agency in federal district court in Washington. The National Voting Rights Institute serves as counsel for the plaintiffs, along with the Washington, D.C. law firm of Jenner & Block.

In its conciliation agreement with Ashcroft’s political committees, the FEC determined that Ashcroft 2000 had improperly received rental income from the fundraising list totaling more than $110,000, constituting “an excessive contribution from the PAC to Ashcroft 2000” in violation of federal campaign finance law. The FEC, however, refused to find that the donation of the list itself constituted an excessive contribution, apparently accepting the contention that Ashcroft, and not his PAC, owned the list as an “exchange for the use of his name and likeness” in creating the list. Federal candidates may make unlimited donations to their campaigns.

“It is absurd to argue that John Ashcroft had exclusive ownership over this fundraising list, when it was in fact developed by the Spirit of America PAC,” says Tenneriello. “The FEC is allowing John Ashcroft’s political committees to evade the law. A ‘contract’ between John Ashcroft and his PAC is not an arms-length transaction and cannot mask the illegal donation that took place. Further, it makes absolutely no sense to say that the rental income from the list constitutes an excessive donation but the donation of the list itself does not.”

“This matter requires further review by a federal court,” Tenneriello continues. “It also deserves attention by the criminal division of the US Justice Department.”

The FEC’s recent action on the administrative complaint comes as the agency fights to avoid discovery in the related federal court case. On July 22, 2003, Federal Judge Emmet G. Sullivan issued a ruling denying the FEC’s motion to dismiss the case and ordering the agency to provide the plaintiffs with crucial information on the agency’s handling of the matter. The plaintiffs have filed before Judge Sullivan a motion to compel the FEC to turn over documents in its investigation of the charges against the Ashcroft committees. Judge Sullivan has scheduled oral argument for January 21, 2004, on that motion, along with the FEC’s renewed motion to dismiss the case.

Attorney General Ashcroft has yet to respond to repeated requests by the plaintiffs that he or his political committees consent to the public release of the FEC documents in this case. Federal law allows the files to be unsealed upon the consent of the parties being reviewed.

A copy of the FEC’s conciliation agreement, along with copies of the plaintiffs’ filings in the pending federal lawsuit, can be found at www.nvri.org.

You can also view the Dec. 17, 2003 Washington Post front-page article entitled: “FEC Fines Ashcroft’s Senate Bid for Breach” at www.washingtonpost.com.

The National Voting Rights Institute, 27 School Street, Ste. 500, Boston, MA 02108
www.nvri.org, (617) 624-3900 (p), (617) 624-3911 (f)

-30-